Jump to content

Judge Says P2P Legal According To The Law


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Given the August 24 COA decision I cannot see how the Barry County Prosecutor wud be content to rest upon his loss. The prosecutor was relyng on the COA opinion in bringing charges, and cannot have changed his mind to belive on the mere word of a circuit judge, that he is some fooltilting at windmills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Berrian County here I Come, if i could afford to move....

 

It is about darn time a Judge, did their Job, and READ THE LAW, Understood it for themselves instead of drinking Jim Jones.. err Bill Schuettes Koolaid!

 

Personal Letters of gratitude for actaully using her common sense in Reading and Understanding the law should be in order...

 

Kudos Judge Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to see how they prosecute these guys. What section of the Public Health Code are they referencing? The section on SALE does not exist. Nowhere in Michigan law is the SALE of cannabis criminalized, only transfer and delivery are illegal (if you deal, you get charged with delivery). The MMMA specifically legalized transfer and delivery between patients. The court ruled sale wasn't legal because the MMMA didn't legalize sale, but sale was never illegal in the first place! (Remember, federal law does not apply here.) It's a basic tenet of law in this country: that which is not prohibited is legal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the COA ruling outweights this one judge. You might expect the COA will overturn this dismissal.

Please do not use this single judge/ruling to begin P2P again. LEO can still arrest you with fake IDs for selling a CSA 1.

 

DN

 

ye its all part of a process.....thie judges ruling changes nothing....but the other judges opinion is bunny muffin..... coa over rules this judge and the law contradict the ruling the coa judge made....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the COA ruling outweights this one judge. You might expect the COA will overturn this dismissal.

Please do not use this single judge/ruling to begin P2P again. LEO can still arrest you with fake IDs for selling a CSA 1.

 

DN

 

Better to be safe then sorry . Even when common sense requires a working program to have open transfers between participants . I have never heard a attorney say they recommended doing it .You risk loosing your right to grow and use which shouldn't happen either - thats torture . Truely scary for anyone who receives medical relief .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to see how they prosecute these guys. What section of the Public Health Code are they referencing? The section on SALE does not exist. Nowhere in Michigan law is the SALE of cannabis criminalized, only transfer and delivery are illegal (if you deal, you get charged with delivery). The MMMA specifically legalized transfer and delivery between patients. The court ruled sale wasn't legal because the MMMA didn't legalize sale, but sale was never illegal in the first place! (Remember, federal law does not apply here.) It's a basic tenet of law in this country: that which is not prohibited is legal...

 

I am not sure how to help you. Here is some reading to help you understand -

 

"The Public health Code act - http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-368-1978-7

 

Sec. 7303a.

 

(1) A prescriber who holds a controlled substances license may administer or dispense a controlled substance listed in schedules 2 to 5 without a separate controlled substances license for those activities.

 

-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

"

Main article: List of Schedule I drugs (US)

"Placement on schedules; findings required

Except ... The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

© There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." [23]

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances

 

Also the MMMAct its wording that a "CG can be compensated, and it will not constitute a sale of a CSA." The MMMAct should have said "patients transferring or delivering to another patient can be compensatated, and it shall not consitute a sale of a CSA 1." Since the MMMAct does not say that, you don't have a defense in P2P.

 

Again, the MMMACT says patients can transfer, deliver, and acquire. The recent COA says that a "SALE" is a transfer or delivery that INCLUDES money.

 

It is going to rest on the COA or Michigan Supreme Court to decide on the wording of 'medical use' and "assisting a patient with use or adminstering". In the mean time, be very careful, very private. If LEO stops you during a P2P, both of you should say "It is FREE, no one paid for the medicine".

 

DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure how to help you. Here is some reading to help you understand -

 

"The Public health Code act - http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-368-1978-7

 

Sec. 7303a.

 

(1) A prescriber who holds a controlled substances license may administer or dispense a controlled substance listed in schedules 2 to 5 without a separate controlled substances license for those activities.

 

-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

"

Main article: List of Schedule I drugs (US)

"Placement on schedules; findings required

Except ... The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

© There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." [23]

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances

 

Also the MMMAct its wording that a "CG can be compensated, and it will not constitute a sale of a CSA." The MMMAct should have said "patients transferring or delivering to another patient can be compensatated, and it shall not consitute a sale of a CSA 1." Since the MMMAct does not say that, you don't have a defense in P2P.

 

Again, the MMMACT says patients can transfer, deliver, and acquire. The recent COA says that a "SALE" is a transfer or delivery that INCLUDES money.

 

It is going to rest on the COA or Michigan Supreme Court to decide on the wording of 'medical use' and "assisting a patient with use or adminstering". In the mean time, be very careful, very private. If LEO stops you during a P2P, both of you should say "It is FREE, no one paid for the medicine".

 

DN

 

sorry i cant find my glasses.....is the jist of what you said based on the notion they can not sell a sched 1 drug?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right - the DEA is saying that a license to dispense a Schedule 1 substance does not exist. That no person licensed to dispense a controlled substance - can dispense a CSA 1 substance. Then the PHC covers the rules of how you get licensed to dispense Controlled substances, and the rule of course points to "no one can dispense a CSA 1 substance."

 

these laws have been around since 1970, and the MMMAct did not supercede any of those laws. The MMMAct gave protection to the CG helping his patients he is connnected to via the registry - by saying "It shall not constitute the sale of a Controlled substance." We needed that wording for P2P, that patients engaged in medical use or 'assisting another' - WITH COMPENSATION, shall not constitute a sale of a CS.

 

The absence of such wording is not a defense.

 

DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...